A lawyer's commentary on cultural property law, antiquities trafficking, art and cultural heritage crimes, legal issues in museum administration, and museum risk management. The materials presented on this site are intended for informational purposes only and should not be used as legal advice applicable to the reader’s specific situation. The provision of information to the reader in no way constitutes an attorney-client relationship.

Never miss a post! Enter your email address below to subscribe today.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Ivory Ban Dispute Requires Consensus-Building If Future TOC Task Forces Are To Be Formed

CHL has
said that the Presidential Task
Force on Wildlife Trafficking should serve as a model for a similar antiquities
trafficking initiative. That is because large-scale transnational organized
crimes (TOCs) like cultural heritage trafficking require highly coordinated and
powerful interdiction. But a recent presidential pronouncement based on the task force's work has ignited a growing firestorm of controversy that could impact the formation of future TOC task forces. Public hearings and consensus-building are urged.

The White House issued the National
Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking in February, a publication derived from the work done by the Task Force. The strategy adopts a near universal ban on the commercial
sale of elephant ivory objects, including old ivory once legitimately
purchased and legally imported. It
restricts all commercial exports except for antiques 100+ years old,
certain noncommercial objects, and items permitted under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). The ban specifically prohibits commercial imports of African
elephant ivory, including antiques. It halts the interstate and intrastate
trade of ivory (except antiques) "unless the seller can demonstrate an
item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for
Asian elephants, or under an exemption document." The ban is hoped to to combat what the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) says is a global illegal ivory trade that "has more than doubled since 2007." DOI reports, "It is estimated that poachers, working with criminal syndicates, systematically killed as many as 35,000 elephants in 2012."

But the blanket ban has prompted Forbes
contributor Doug Bandow to remark,
"The Obama administration is preparing to
treat virtually every antique collector, dealer, and auctioneer in America—and
anyone else who happens to own a piece of ivory—as a criminal." Others have expressed similar views.

Proponents of the ban entirely disagree, saying that America needs stringent rules
because it has the second largest ivory marketplace in the world, a
statistic tendered by a comprehensive United Nations Environment Program report
published last year titledElephants
in the Dust. President and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S., Wayne Pacelle, explains
the trade volume and makes a case for the ban in hisA Humane Nationblog:

But
the sad truth is that the U.S. is the second largest ivory marketplace after
China, partly because it’s legal to trade in “antique” ivory more than
100 years old, ivory imported to the U.S. before Asian and African elephants
received protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1975 and 1990, respectively),
or non-elephant ivory such as mammoth ivory. Traffickers claim that ivory
from recently poached elephants is antique, and they dye it to make it look old
and forge documents to substantiate their claim... The truth is that there is no way for enforcement officers or
the public to distinguish old from new ivory, or which species worked ivory
comes from. It all adds up to a robust legal and illegal trade of ivory in the
U.S.

Besides the blanket ban, the White House's National
Strategy offers universally appealing steps to strengthen
law enforcement and to increase cooperation among individuals,
organizations, and governments to suppress elephant poaching and ivory
trafficking. It is only blanket ban on the trade of pre-existing elephant ivory
objects that prompts the controversy and the need for public discussion.

Personal
property issues likely to arise as a result of the moratorium on pre-existing elephant ivory goods include potential problems
for individuals, businesses, and museums. A few illustrations:

A Cold War Army veteran who served in the Horn of Africa and who
lawfully brought home ivory vases to the U.S. after purchasing then from a
local craftsman may find, upon his death, that the county probate court has denied the executor's ability to auction the items at an estate sale, thereby reducing
the anticipated value of the former soldier's estate.

A family who had their grand piano restored in 1992 with pre-ban ivory
keys may be prohibited from selling their $20,000 instrument unless they either can
produce decades-old paperwork that likely would have been in the hands of the
piano restorer (who may be retired or out of business now that 22 years have passed) or can retrofit the keyboard with plastic keys at a cost (assuming that a piano restorer would want to conduct this business in the wake of the new ban).

An American museum may be restricted from importing, accessioning, and
conserving a properly provenance hand-crafted Byzantine ivory triptych, once used for private religious
devotion in the 10th century.

An American furniture seller of French art deco tables
from the 1920’s through 1940’s who stores her inventory in Europe may suffer
business losses and breach existing contracts because she cannot ship her stocks
to the U.S.

A divorcing couple and their family court judge may find themselves hamstrung as
they attempt to tally marital assets that can no longer be considered “assets” because the couple's original wedding gifts of non-antique pre-ban jewelry, billiard balls, chess pieces, ivory-handled knives, and natsukes now have no resale value.

These and other issues are certain to surface, particularly because the proposed blanket ivory ban differs from what has been expected in past years under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

With regard to African elephant ivory, the existing rules in the U.S. have generally been that:

It is illegal to own, sell, or export crafted ivory
imported into the U.S. after 1989 and which was less than 100 years old when
the crafted ivory came across the American border.

It is illegal to own, sell, or export uncrafted ivory that
was imported into the U.S. after 1989. The age of the ivory does not matter.

It is legal to own, sell, or export crafted or
uncrafted ivory that was imported into the U.S. before 1989.

The rules for Asian elephant ivory have been, broadly speaking, that ivory cannot
be sold in interstate or international commerce, that permits are required for
import or for export, and that sales within the U.S. are allowed unless
restricted by CITES or by State law.

It is entirely fair to say that the announced rules changes suddenly sweeps
up innocent owners of old ivory in a dragnet, particularly owners of old African ivory items.

Despite the consequences to innocent owners, a rationale
for a total ban is given by the nonprofit Environmental Investigation
Agency on itsweb
site: Ivory "belong[s] on the
animal and nowhere else … Attempting to
undercut the black market with a ‘legal’ supply is a naïve and inappropriate
strategy for a market that does not have a finite demand and which is ever more
stimulated by new supplies."

But the coming weeks are expected to see an increase in opposition to
the ban, even from those who traditionally support strong measures
to counter TOC. Buoyed by arguments that collective punishment is being exacted on
innocent citizens and that there has been no opportunity for a public hearing, ban opponents will rest their core points on the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments' exhortations that that no person shall be "deprived of ...
property without due process of law."

That the blanket ban cuts the chaff of ivory black
marketeers by sacrificing the entire wheat field of individual property rights and commercial
trade is an argument that will likely be heard. In fact, opponents are sure to spotlight
the ban as an overly broad enforcement tactic, contending that the U.S.
would never place a sweeping freeze on banking transactions to halt money
laundering; would not propose to halt the sale of
all medications in order to eliminate the counterfeit prescriptions market; and would not
declare a moratorium on the sale of all movies to combat media piracy.

Public figures like Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will, nevertheless, continue to endorse the blanket ban.
Writing for the Clinton Foundationblog,
they explain,

The global ban agreed in 1989 was
successful in stemming a previous killing spree. Over time, however, exceptions
have eviscerated the international ban and illegal ivory is now routinely
bought and sold under one or more loopholes, providing cover for illegal
traffickers. These need to be closed and sanctions imposed on countries that
continue to trade in ivory products.

Clamping down on poachers and smugglers is critical to preserving our planet's endangered elephants. But the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking possesses shortcomings that urgently require public discussion. The current controversy
should not be permitted to diminish the need for a
national strategy to combat cultural heritage trafficking. The threats of
war, looting, smuggling, and vandalism to heritage remain prevalent, requiring
a firm and coordinated response. Ensuring that the wildlife strategy is subject to public debate, is properly formulated, and that it has broad public support will build enthusiasm for a
future heritage trafficking strategy. If the current National Strategy continues
to build controversy without consensus, however, other TOC task force proposals may never get off the
ground.

2015 ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

2014 ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

2014 Daniel Webster International Lawyer of the Year award given to Rick St. Hilaire

"Rick St. Hilaire, who has become an authority on cultural heritage law, received the International Law Section’s 2014 Daniel Webster International Lawyer of the Year award at an Oct. 30 reception in Manchester, hosted by Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green." - NH Bar News, November 19, 2014

LexisNexis Top 25 Blogs

Top International Law Blogs

Rick St. Hilaire is among those featured in Josh Knelman's book, Hot Art

DISCLAIMER: This blog is for general information only. The information provided on this site should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it form an attorney-client relationship with the reader. While accuracy is strived for, the information presented here may not contain the most current legal developments. It is not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No warranty, either express or implied, is given by this site or its contents. There may be information presented that links to outside sources. These links are not intended to be an endorsement of these sites, their information, or their opinions. Comments or opinions made by others are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CHL or its author(s). This site is intended for informational purposes and is not attorney advertising. If you send an email to Cultural Heritage Lawyer, it will not form an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as confidential or privileged. You should not send confidential communications through this web site or via email.